Can we cut the Sensationalizing…PLEASE?

The fundamental premise of most federally elected officials is that tightening their grip around the throats of the people will improve society.

I would encourage each of them to spend some time with a dog. The harder one pulls on the leash of a dog the more it strains to be free. Ultimately the dog pulls itself loose from the collar and runs wild, or it shies away in fear at every encounter.

Dogs are not much different from people, really. Every living creature desires life and liberty. It is the nature of living beings.

Yet, for thousands of years men of authority have failed to learn that one simple lesson that the powers of their office are inseparably connected to persuasion, not to compulsion. “One more regulation” seems to be the eternal mantra of those that would be masters. “If at first control does not work, tighten the leash” appears to be the follow-up.

God declared, “Thou shalt not kill”! In the intervening years since that monumental and spectacular pronouncement mankind’s appointed masters have written ten thousand laws to enforce the Ten Commandments.

In recent years the consummately conspicuous contraptions of control have been “hate crimes”. These are a set of laws adding subtly distinctive punishment to thoughts. This breed of punish focuses on controlling the thoughts as well as the behavior.

Terrorism is one of those popular “hate crimes”. It gets particular mileage for those that would be gods over the otherwise godless. The right brand of labeling makes, in the eyes of the beholder, a crime more vicious. It’s vileness rest on the motivations of the perpetrator.

We tend to used extraordinary descriptive words to explain the conduct of those whom are motivated by their beliefs. In the case of Tsarnaev’s, they are guilt of murder. A trial will be legitimately held to determine the certainty of that. Likewise it will determine the fate of the younger of the two. Society, via mostly through our elected officials seeking to be extraordinarily offended, label their actions as terror. Yet, Gosnell is guilt of murder. He is guilty of far more murders. Some stories suggest him crimes against humanity have been as extensive as the “terrorists” of September 11, 2001. The terms “terrorist” or “legal abortionist” do not alter the facts about their conduct. They are murders.

They committed violence against a natural right and ought to be punished, not rehabilitated. Their motivations (create terror, or, enhance the lifestyle of a woman) may be relevant for discussion and planning for the future, but those motivation do not alter the fact that they are murderers and ought to be punished, in the course of proper and lawful jurisprudence.

The nature of the victim, the vastness of their wicked thoughts ought not determine the depth or breadth of their punishment. Politicians are a breed of self-conceited dictators. Just as they seek special favor for their paying supporters, they warp their thinking into special brands of crime for enemies that likewise offend those same supporters. It matters not what principle may be at heart. It matters only if their pride can be satisfied among those that would buoy them up.

Giving a special name to an age-old crime does not categorize it into a form of vileness. It only segregates the crime into a platform for self-indulgence by those who would exercise control over others.